Political Compass

Or the homogeneity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Or the homogeneity?

---

That'd be the racial bit, sweetums

At least compared to the gods-awful mish-mash you folks have over there :coffee:

I think the cultural side of things is more important than the ethnic, but it's late and I'm tired and I did miss the racial bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I think the cultural side of things is more important than the ethnic, but it's late and I'm tired and I did miss the racial bit.

---

*shrug* Cultures foster among communities, and even without "white pride" jackasses the various ethnicities in the US seem to have congregated amongst themselves

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...0.50&soc=-2.56

Almost exactly the same as last time, I think :flail:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NGS

But if progress is really what it means--an improvement--then why delay it? Progress should come swiftly, and heck, if there's no official way to dispute it without getting your head chopped off, there's no need to worry about dissent.

---

'Progress' is not always an advantage. Nor should it necessarily come swiftly, it should come right.

Quote:

---

I think this has to do with what side of the argument you're on, too. An advocate of democracy would make an argument similar to yours because they believe in the principles of the system (ie the people decide through their representation what's best for them), while a Phoxe...erm, fascist would say the trepidation in passing legislature is a sign of weakness, etc.

---

This is a very good example actually. Phoxe's completely ballsed-up implementation of the rule changes shows a one-party-state attitude to change, rushing it through without dissent. In my case being removed due to behind-the-scenes dissent. Did it work? I'd say no. A slower, but more managed, well-discussed implementation could have worked much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I never bought that logic, though I can't remember if I participated in that discussion. It's like saying you can't claim a car has a speed advantage over a horse because sometimes you won't like where you're driving to. The problem with one party systems is not in how fast they can get things done, it's in what they get done. Their speed of action is an advantage that often isn't used towards good ends.

---

No, its like saying driving to the speed limit (Democracy), is safer than driving with your foot down at full speed at all times (One party state). Yes, you'll get from A to B quicker if you're travelling at 140mph in a residential area, but chances are you'll crash and hurt yourself or others, miss a required turning because you didn't realise you needed to turn etc

All this highlights is the ambiguity of the question. As above, depending on what scenario you place it in, you get different answers.

I can easily see myself seeing it from Rands point of view if that was what was meant. Without said information though, i have to take it on face value - "The factor to consider is speed. Does a dictatorship have an advantage over a democracy" Answer - yes.

Without more information, you have to go with the simplest possible interpretation.

An apt metaphor, Randy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, its like saying driving to the speed limit (Democracy), is safer than driving with your foot down at full speed at all times (One party state). Yes, you'll get from A to B quicker if you're travelling at 140mph in a residential area, but chances are you'll crash and hurt yourself or others, miss a required turning because you didn't realise you needed to turn etc

---

But is a one party state equivalent to driving at full speed? Single-party states can get pretty cozy for the leaders. When the ruling party has no serious competitors it may get complacent, utilizing "the machine" (whether its electoral [in the case of democracy] or violent [in the case of dictatorship]) to keep it in power and keep alternative voices from gaining any traction in government. Of course, this coziness eventually leads to decay and downfall, but it can take a while to happen.

Just disputing your analogy ;) . As well as the question from the test... Nessus is dead on in that there are a huge number of assumptions underlying most of these questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, its like saying driving to the speed limit (Democracy), is safer than driving with your foot down at full speed at all times (One party state). Yes, you'll get from A to B quicker if you're travelling at 140mph in a residential area, but chances are you'll crash and hurt yourself or others, miss a required turning because you didn't realise you needed to turn etc

---

I'm sticking witht he car & horse analogy. You can get wherever you need to go faster, but you don't have to. It's not an flaw that the car can go faster than the horse, or that some cars can go faster than other cars. If you're going faster than is safe given your ability, the blame isn't on your capability for speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

'Progress' is not always an advantage. Nor should it necessarily come swiftly, it should come right.

This is a very good example actually. Phoxe's completely ballsed-up implementation of the rule changes shows a one-party-state attitude to change, rushing it through without dissent. In my case being removed due to behind-the-scenes dissent. Did it work? I'd say no. A slower, but more managed, well-discussed implementation could have worked much better.

No, its like saying driving to the speed limit (Democracy), is safer than driving with your foot down at full speed at all times (One party state). Yes, you'll get from A to B quicker if you're travelling at 140mph in a residential area, but chances are you'll crash and hurt yourself or others, miss a required turning because you didn't realise you needed to turn etc

---

All very good points, and I think in the end Spawnie still gets it right; the ambiguity of the questions forces you to go with whatever your mind decides the simplest interpretation is.

Everyone complains about the questions. But the way you interpret the question is part of the psych evaluation that goes into the calculation of your score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

But the way you interpret the question is part of the psych evaluation that goes into the calculation of your score.

---

... And how exactly is the test supposed to magically determine how I interpreted a question when I answered it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempus Vernum

... And how exactly is the test supposed to magically determine how I interpreted a question when I answered it?

---

Magic? Not at all. Have you noticed how some of the questions seem to be a bit redundant? Without taking into account the degree of the answers there are 4 combinations of answers to those sets of redundant questions.

For/For
For/Against
Against/For
Against/Against

Weighting those with the degree of the answers provide substantial information for psychological analyis portion of the evaluation. It would be interesting to see the formula used. It is probably quite involved.

I moved a bit more center...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...3.12&soc=-3.95

Economic Left/Right: 3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

No social conservatives. Huh.

C'mon Lewk. Share!

How much credence do people actually put into these personality profilers? What is the likelihood of there being a response to any one, let alone all, of the questions that accurately demonstrates your views. I know it's fun to do, any reader of Cosmo can tell you that, but I can think of many things more fun than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

How much credence do people actually put into these personality profilers? What is the likelihood of there being a response to any one, let alone all, of the questions that accurately demonstrates your views. I know it's fun to do, any reader of Cosmo can tell you that, but I can think of many things more fun than this.

---

Sure, but what else are we supposed to do at work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempus Vernum

Sure, but what else are we supposed to do at work?

---

Work? What the hell have I been doing? :headbang:

Did someone say inter-office 'politicing' *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*

Will create a new chart tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Will create a new chart tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

---

Sweet. :D
Thanks Khen. :up:

I always liked you khen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

No social conservatives. Huh.

C'mon Lewk. Share!

---

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...=6.88&soc=0.72

I'm probably the closest, and I've drifted farther right than I expected. Still not as down towards the libertarian side as I'dve thought either.

4.88 / - 2.10

I'd previously almost always been within 2 units of the center....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...3.67&soc=-7.78
Economic Left/Right: -3.67
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59

Finally done it :)

http://www.khaja.de/images/political_compass.png

The legend on the right does not totally correspond to the icons on the left. Don't know why, but should be recognizable regardless.
Did include the median and the average just for shits and giggles.

Nice Khen. Good job. Thanks. :up:

Nice, Khen.

Still no Lewk? Come on. Either play along or don't bother showing up.

Heh, thats pretty neat, thanks.